Download PDF

A Position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

Question: What factors should be considered in evaluating the effectiveness of teachers of mathematics?

Accountability requirements in education have led to an increase in the number of school districts that are experimenting with including data on the improvement of students’ test scores over time, or what are called value-added measures, as a significant component of teacher-evaluation systems. Research on such evaluation systems is only now emerging, and findings on their effectiveness raise concerns about their reliability, validity, and stability (Sass, 2008). These findings indicate that many assessments of student learning are not appropriately vertically aligned (Corcoran, 2010). Other analyses indicate that measures of teacher effectiveness can vary significantly, depending on the statistical method used (Newton et al., 2010). There is also concern that some current accountability tests measure low-level skills rather than critical mathematical processes, conceptual understanding and reasoning, and problem solving, as called for in new standards and recommendations (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010; NCTM, 2009). Value-added models are generally based on standardized test scores and do not directly measure potential teacher contributions to other student outcomes (ASA, 2014). Many variables affect testing results, and many test results may not be an accurate reflection of teacher effectiveness.

Evaluations are most effective when they provide teachers with guidance on how to improve their performance (Little, 2009). It is essential that teachers are provided with the support, professional development, and resources to perform their jobs. Incorporating the effective teaching practices from Principles to Actions (NCTM, 2014) as domains of the evaluation process can create a more complete picture of a teacher’s effectiveness. Observations, artifacts, and a teacher’s self-analysis are other aspects that should have a role in the process. The use of a variety of tools, and ensuring that the evaluators of teachers are properly trained in their use, can generate a more accurate representation of effectiveness than a focus that is primarily on test scores and value-added measures.

A narrow use of student test scores to evaluate teachers’ effectiveness may obscure or overlook the fact that teaching is a complex endeavor. Teaching consists of multiple domains of professional practice, and student learning is a product not only of what happens within the classroom but also of what happens outside the classroom. Additionally, teachers do not all teach under the same working conditions but deal with differing assignments, student characteristics, and resources. Although evidence of student learning can and should be considered in the evaluation of teachers, it should be only one factor among many and should not be used for high-stakes decisions about individual teachers or schools (McCaffrey et al., 2005). Including the effective teaching practices (NCTM, 2014) as domains of the evaluation process, and ensuring that evaluators of teachers are properly trained in their use, can create a more complete picture of a teacher’s effectiveness than a primary focus on test scores and value-added measures.

References

1. American Education Research Association (AERA) and National Academy of Education. (2011).Getting teacher evaluation right: A brief for policymakers. Washington, DC: AERA.
2. American Statistical Association. (2014). ASA statement on using value-added models for educational assessment. Alexandria, VA: Author.
3. Corcoran, S. P. (2010). Can teachers be evaluated by their students’ test scores? Should they be? The use of value-added measures of teacher effectiveness in policy and practice. New York, NY: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
4. Danielson, C. F. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
5. McCaffrey, D. F., Koretz, D., Lockwood, J. R., & Hamilton, L. S. (2005). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
6. National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. (2002). What teachers should know and be able to do: The five core propositions. Arlington, VA: Author. http://www.nbpts.org/the_standards/the_five_core_propositio.
7. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.
8. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
9. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2009). Focus in high school mathematics:Reasoning and sense making. Reston, VA: Author.
10. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Common core state standards (college- and career-readiness standards and K–12 standards in English language arts and math). Washington, DC: Author. http://www.corestandards.org
11. Newton, X. A., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., & Thomas, E. (2010). Value-added modeling of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Educational Policy and Analysis Archives, 18(23), 1–27.
12. Papay, J. P. (2011). Different tests, different answers: The stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 163–193.
13. Sass, T. (2008). The stability of value-added measures of teacher quality and implications for teacher compensation policy. Brief 4. Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
14. Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol(RTOP). ACEPT Technical Report No. IN00-1. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.

July 2016